Police Report Clears Accused Karan Ganesh Shinde: Mumbai Sessions Court Grants Bail After Finding No Evidence of Involvement in Attempted Murder Case

The Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai granted immediate bail to Karan Ganesh Shinde, who had been arrested in connection with a serious case involving attempted murder, rioting, and arms act violations. H.H. Additional Sessions Judge A. A. Kulkarni (C.R. No. 22) allowed the application on May 13, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1246 of 2024, based on the highly unusual circumstance that the Investigating Officer (IO) had already submitted a report to the Magistrate finding no evidence against the applicant. The Court unequivocally ruled that the applicant’s further detention could not be justified after the police themselves concluded he was not involved in the commission of the offenses.

The Charges and the Applicant’s Plea

Karan Ganesh Shinde was arrested by the Ghatkopar Police Station in connection with C.R. No. 332/2024. The charges leveled were grave, including:

IPC Sections: 143, 144, 147, 149 (Unlawful Assembly and Rioting), 307 (Attempt to Murder), 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 504 (Intentional Insult), and 506(II) (Criminal Intimidation).
Special Acts: Section 4, 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 37(1)(a), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

The applicant’s counsel, Mr. Dilip Parmar / Ms. Rekha Udhane, asserted that Mr. Shinde was falsely implicated, was not present at the incident spot, and that nothing was seized at his instance. They argued that, given the lack of evidence, there was no need for continued detention.

The Crucial Turning Point: The Police Report under Section 169 Cr.P.C.

The core of the judicial order hinged on the findings of the investigating police authority. During the hearing, the Court reviewed the FIR and the statement of the informant (Eklavya Deepak Sonawane). The Court revealed a critical detail discovered during the investigation:

The Investigating Officer (IO) found that at the time of the alleged offense, the applicant was not present on the spot and was not involved in the commission of the offense.

Based on this finding, the IO had already taken the extraordinary step of filing a Report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. A Section 169 report is an official police document submitted when the IO concludes that “there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate.”

Rationale: Detention Cannot be Justified Without Evidence

Despite the IO’s report, the applicant remained in custody because the Ld. Magistrate had called for a report from the informant and the APP, and the final decision on discharging the accused had not yet been finalized. The continued detention of the applicant in the face of the police’s own finding of non-involvement was the central issue.

The Ld. APP, Veena Shellar, and the IO still formally opposed the bail application, arguing that the investigation was “still in progress” and that there was a “possibility of tampering of evidence.”

The Sessions Judge, however, was resolute in his assessment. He stated that in light of the IO’s submission of a report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C., which explicitly concluded that “there is no sufficient evidence against the applicant to proceed with the case,” the “further detention of the applicant can not be justified on any ground.” The Court logically concluded that if the police themselves declare a lack of evidence, judicial custody is unwarranted.

Bail Granted on Personal Bond

The Criminal Bail Application No. 1246 of 2024 was allowed. Karan Ganesh Shinde was ordered to be released on bail on the following minimal condition:

P.R. Bond: Furnishing a P.R. Bond of ₹15,000/-.
Cooperation: The applicant was required to cooperate with the police during the investigation by attending the investigating officer on written notice—a standard condition, despite the IO’s current conclusion of non-involvement.

This order serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of prompt police reporting to the judiciary when evidence fails to materialize, preventing the unnecessary and unjustified detention of citizens whose innocence has been confirmed by the very agency that arrested them. The order secured the liberty of the applicant, preventing his continued incarceration based solely on a pending administrative procedure.